9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Maintainability of appeal against the sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 2. Consideration of parallel proceedings before the consumer forum 3. Entitlement to prosecute parallel proceedings for duplicated benefits 4. Imposition of sentence as per Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 5. Validity of the order of the trial court Analysis: 1. The revision pertains to the appeal against the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge. The petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the respondent for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court convicted the respondent but imposed a fine of only &8377; 20,000, which was not proportionate to twice the cheque amount as required by law. The sessions judge held that an appeal against the sentence was not maintainable and dismissed the appeal, considering the relief granted by the consumer forum to the complainant on the same claim. 2. The respondent argued that maintaining a second revision under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not permissible as the remedy had already been exhausted before the sessions court. It was contended that duplicating benefits through parallel proceedings was unjust. However, the petitioner highlighted the timing of the consumer forum's decision, which came after the trial court's order, and was pending in appeal. 3. The court noted that while parallel proceedings on the same subject matter could be entertained, granting duplicated relief was not permissible. The magistrate's lenient sentence of &8377; 20,000 was considered inappropriate given the pending consumer forum proceedings. The court emphasized that the relief granted in earlier proceedings should be considered, and in this case, the trial court erred in not imposing the sentence as per Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. The court found no valid reason for the lenient sentence imposed by the trial court, especially considering the subsequent decision of the consumer forum. The court set aside the lower court's orders and directed the respondent to pay a fine of twice the cheque amount, with a portion allocated towards prosecution expenses and the rest as compensation to the complainant. 5. The respondent's submission regarding the already paid fine was noted, but no further orders were deemed necessary, as the court found no grounds to interfere with the directed order.
|
